Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no Apologies for Absence.

Members made declarations as follows:

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 November 2014 as a correct record. These Minutes have been circulated, and are available online by visiting www.scambs.gov.uk and following links from ‘Your Council’.

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 November 2014.

The Committee refused the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being that no very special circumstances had been demonstrated for the development that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt through inappropriateness and other harm from coalescence

Councillor Robin Page (objector), Luke Simpson (applicant’s agent), Councillor David Bard (a local Member) and Councillor Tony Orgee (the Member for the adjoining village of Babraham) addressed the meeting.

During the course of the public speaking, Members noted

·         Arguments that agricultural land was needed more for food production, and that the application might not entirely be driven by the concept of renewable energy

·         An observation that the UK lacked an integrated land use policy

·         Food security and deficit concerns

·         Alternative positioning of solar panels

·         Efforts made by the applicant to address the concerns raised by Members at the Planning Committee meeting on 5 November 2014

·         The impact on the Green Belt, already under pressure around Sawston

·         Viability

·         Impact on the ‘green separation’ between Sawston and Babraham

·         Harm to the Green Belt not outweighed by the benefits offered by the proposal

·         Detrimental impact on the area

The Senior Lawyer reminded Members to restrict their deliberations to material planning considerations, and community benefits that were capable of being required by the Local Planning Authority, by means of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in order to make acceptable a planning application that would otherwise be unacceptable.

The Committee refused the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being that no very special circumstances had been demonstrated for the development that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt through inappropriateness and other harm from coalescence

The Committee deferred the application so that further consideration could be given to all representations received from the public.

Councillor Tony Orgee delivered a statement on behalf of Pampisford Parish Council, and also addressed the meeting as local Member. He said that a number of objections submitted via the Council’s website, appeared not to have been considered in preparing the Committee report.

The Committee deferred the application so that further consideration could be given to all representations received from the public.

The Committee considered that very special circumstances existed for the development that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt through inappropriateness and other harm and gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to it being referred to the Secretary of State as a Departure from the Development Plan, and not being called in for determination.

Members visited the site on 2 December 2014.

Dr. Lynn Morgan (Chief Executive of the Arthur Rank Hospice Charity) and Councillor Charles Nightingale (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

During the course of the public speaking, Members noted

·         Highway concerns, and a request that South Cambridgeshire District Council urge Cambridgeshire County Council as Local Highways Authority to reduce the 60mph speed limit along Cherry Hinton Road.

·         The very special circumstances outweighing any harm to the Green Belt

The Committee considered that very special circumstances existed for the development that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt through inappropriateness and other harm and gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to it being referred to the Secretary of State as a Departure from the Development Plan, and not being called in for determination.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being that no very special circumstances had been demonstrated for the development that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt through inappropriateness, and other harm through an adverse impact on views from, and enjoyment of, public bridle path numbers 4 and 8.

Aly Anderson (objector), Ed Smith (applicant’s agent), Jane Gough (Thriplow Parish Council) and Councillor Peter Topping (local Member) addressed the meeting.

During the course of the public speaking, Members noted

·         Cumulative effect of solar farms

·         Urbanisation of the Green Belt

·         The proposal was described as being out of keeping with its surroundings

·         Adverse visual impact from nearby public rights of way

·         Adverse impact on bridleway amenity

·         Absence of any special circumstances that would otherwise outweigh harm to the Green Belt

·         Biodiversity benefits

·         Inappropriate development

·         No objection from the Imperial War Museum, Duxford

The Senior Lawyer referred Members to his written note detailing his observations on representations submitted by Richard Buxton Environmental & Public Law via letters dated 1 October 2014 and 24 November 2014. He reminded Members to restrict their deliberations to material planning considerations, and community benefits that were capable of being required by the Local Planning Authority, by means of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in order to make acceptable a planning application that would otherwise be unacceptable.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being that no very special circumstances had been demonstrated for the development that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt through inappropriateness, and other harm through an adverse impact on views from, and enjoyment of, public bridle path numbers 4 and 8.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

Councillor Tim Scott (local Member) delivered a statement from Comberton Parish Council which Highlighted

·         the post office’s location within, and the proposal’s impact upon,   the Conservation Area

·         car parking issues

On his own account, Councillor Scott highlighted the importance of effective security measures for such a business.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to:

1.    If required in policy terms following changes to National Planning Practice Guidance on 28 November, the prior completion of a Legal Agreement, under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, securing financial contributions in respect of public open space, community facilities, education, health and public art;

2.    Submission of an acceptable, amended plan showing reduced height of the flats along the south eastern edge of the development, and realigned dwellings and landscaping; and

3.    The Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

Members visited the site on 2 December 2014.

Shane Lawrence (objector), Ray Houghton (agent) with Richard Parry, and Councillors Val Barrett and Jose Hales (local Members) addressed the meeting,

During the course of the public speaking, Members noted

·         The relationship between the current application and the emerging Local Plan’s aspiration for the site, such Plan currently being assessed by an Inspector for soundness

·         The public engagement that had taken place

·         Sustainability

·         That the developer was local

·         That Melbourn residents would be given first option when it came to affordable housing

The Senior Lawyer reminded Members that anyone could make a planning application so long as it was in accordance with policy. The current policy framework existed in the Local Development Framework 2007 and the National Planning Policy Framework. The application should be assessed against those policies and in the context of material planning considerations.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to:

1.    If required in policy terms following changes to National Planning Practice Guidance on 28 November, the prior completion of a Legal Agreement, under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, securing financial contributions in respect of public open space, community facilities, education, health and public art;

2.    Submission of an acceptable, amended plan showing reduced height of the flats along the south eastern edge of the development, and realigned dwellings and landscaping; and

3.    The Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the recommendation, subject to:

1.    a reduction in the scale and form of the proposed dwelling on Plot 3;

2.    the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 sexuring the provision of two affordable dwellings, and financial contributions towards public open space and community infrastructure; and

3.    the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the recommendation, subject to:

1.    a reduction in the scale and form of the proposed dwelling on Plot 3;

2.    If required in policy terms following changes to National Planning Practice Guidance on 28 November, the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the provision of two affordable dwellings, and financial contributions towards public open space and community infrastructure; and

3.    the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director

Councillors Val Barrett and Jose Hales (local Members for the adjacent parish of Melbourn) addressed the meeting.  They commented as follows:

·         The site was very visible

·         The land should remain free of development

·         This was the wrong location for this proposal

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director

The Committee received and noted an Update on enforcement action.

The Committee received and noted a report on Appeals against planning decisions and enforcement action.